Book VS. Movie

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Cheffie1983

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2016
125
581
40
why do they always have to differ so greatly? I've loved SK books since I first read Salems Lot. I've laughed, I've cursed him for killing characters, and I've cried...much for the same reason. But the movies do not carry the same emotion.

Why must they vary so much? Is it because SK is so awesome no actor is worthy to speak aloud what he puts to page?

The Regulators is a story that made me feel so deeply, I read it 6 times a year...just to feel that way. And for that I say Thankee-sai. Your word slinging is appreciated, Mr. King.
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
why do they always have to differ so greatly? I've loved SK books since I first read Salems Lot. I've laughed, I've cursed him for killing characters, and I've cried...much for the same reason. But the movies do not carry the same emotion.

Why must they vary so much? Is it because SK is so awesome no actor is worthy to speak aloud what he puts to page?

The Regulators is a story that made me feel so deeply, I read it 6 times a year...just to feel that way. And for that I say Thankee-sai. Your word slinging is appreciated, Mr. King.
....some of it IS the acting, some the Director(even King himself), but mostly I feel it has everything to do with the celluloid images not holding a candle to our own imaginations.....
 

OldDarth

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2006
730
2,994
Canada
The excellent points aside, in a lot of cases what works in books does not work as well in movies. Internal dialogue is the biggest issue. Narration can be used but turns off a lot of movie goers.

The other issue is length. A movie runs at a pace of about a page a minute so a two hour movie is roughly about 120 pages. Put that against a lot of King books which are many multiples of that and a movie creator is faced with the tough task of compressing. Compressing story results in loss of those little details and character moments King does so well.
 

lowman

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2015
438
2,154
50
Theres nothing like reading the book and playing it out in your head,your own characters souroundings things like that,i enjoy getting lost in it all and forgetting all my problems for awhile and just be somewhere else for a bit ya know?
 

Walter Oobleck

keeps coming back...or going, and going, and going
Mar 6, 2013
11,749
34,805
Money'd be my guess...budget constraints. A writer doesn't need much in the way of overhead to write, maybe the writer can mooch off friends even. But when you hear about the money that changes hands during the movie-making process, mind boggling. Then there's all those cooks stirring the pot, not to mention every other involved in a movie...like the grip. Say the grip is having a bad day, maybe he's late on his trailer payment...and he doesn't grip at the right time. I have no idea what a grip does, but I think I saw "grip" listed in the credits this once. I've looked, since, too and I think I've seen "grip" listed allatime. Or carpenter. Heh! Yeah, give me that job...build a fake store front, that or remodel Detroit. Many of the movies are good...haven't seen them all, did see at least one stinker...ole Tommyknocker Village...there's some carpenter somewhere chuckling over that one. Guy sidles up to the bar, regular, hey Burt...I made some blocks for the Tommyknocker set, spray-painted them white. Director didn't have a clue. No kidding! Yeah, but I didn't actually make them...I borrowed them from the Smurf set.
 

Stranger.Danger

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2016
62
224
Budget, Director, and the time constraints play a big part in it. For Stephen King who's books can be lengthy, movies are not the best format to adapt his works. If given to the right director; put on a TV format; and given a appropriate budget, his books can be done well enough. But trying to squeeze a 600 to 1000 page book into a two hour feature film is quite difficult.
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
Budget, Director, and the time constraints play a big part in it. For Stephen King who's books can be lengthy, movies are not the best format to adapt his works. If given to the right director; put on a TV format; and given a appropriate budget, his books can be done well enough. But trying to squeeze a 600 to 1000 page book into a two hour feature film is quite difficult.
...welcome SD!.....
 

Spideyman

Uber Member
Jul 10, 2006
46,336
195,472
79
Just north of Duma Key
Budget, Director, and the time constraints play a big part in it. For Stephen King who's books can be lengthy, movies are not the best format to adapt his works. If given to the right director; put on a TV format; and given a appropriate budget, his books can be done well enough. But trying to squeeze a 600 to 1000 page book into a two hour feature film is quite difficult.
Hi and welcome to the SKMB.
 

The Nameless

M-O-O-N - That spells Nameless
Jul 10, 2011
2,080
8,261
42
The Darkside of the Moon (England really)
Pretty much everything mentioned already - how much is left out of a film, visual imagery vs imagination, etc.

The main reasons for me are that alot of King's characters think alot of their parts because of the depth and effort he puts into them (which is why we love him so) which doesn't really work on film, narration can be used like old Darth said, but that doesn't really cut it.

The other reason, I believe, is time. The average movie is 90 -100 minutes, stretch it to 3 hours for epics, how attached can you get to a character in 3 hours? People read the book that the film is based on in days and weeks, giving them much more time to get attached to the characters.

There are some exceptions - if you use the right book, adapt it the right way, and get the right actors, then you can get attached to Paul edgecomb and John coffey because Tom hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan played them so well.
 

Nomik

Carry on
Jun 19, 2016
3,973
22,555
47
Derry, NH
The direct connection between the author and the reader is lost, when it becomes a movie, but movies are more realistic though.
Reading a book by SK is an immersive experience. I can't relate to the movies being more realistic though, possibly because ...:hopelessness: That all depends on what your definition of reality is. . :p
I couldn't help myself!
Pretty much everything mentioned already - how much is left out of a film, visual imagery vs imagination, etc.

The main reasons for me are that alot of King's characters think alot of their parts because of the depth and effort he puts into them (which is why we love him so) which doesn't really work on film, narration can be used like old Darth said, but that doesn't really cut it.

The other reason, I believe, is time. The average movie is 90 -100 minutes, stretch it to 3 hours for epics, how attached can you get to a character in 3 hours? People read the book that the film is based on in days and weeks, giving them much more time to get attached to the characters.

There are some exceptions - if you use the right book, adapt it the right way, and get the right actors, then you can get attached to Paul edgecomb and John coffey because Tom hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan played them so well.
:thumbs_up:
The exceptions are Jaws by Peter Benchley (just to beat a proverbial dead shark) and . . .:umm:. . .Im not able to think of another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy and GNTLGNT